Per Patrick W's request, I'm going to spend the next couple of days looking at how the 1987 player's strike impacted the NFL. There have been thousands of pages written on the 1987 strike, so any analysis here would be woefully inadequate. But to provide at least some color on the event, let's start at the beginning.

Part I: Labor History

In 1956, the NFL Players Associated was formed. It's original goal was to create a minimum salary for all players and to gain some benefits that would be considered standard today. Threatened by a lawsuit, the NFL owners mostly gave into the players' demand, but refused to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA. In 1968, a brief lockout and subsequent strike occurred. It ended when, with Art Modell serving as NFL President and Chairman of the Owners Labor Committee, the players and owners negotiated the sport's first CBA, guaranteeing veteran players a minimum salary of $10,000. When the AFL and NFL merged, so did the league's respective Player Associations.

And, in the summer of 1970, the newly merged NFL saw its first strike. A new CBA was created, the minimum salary was raised to $13,000 and a more favorably pension plan was approved. By 1974, the NFLPA had become a stronger organization, and was ready to tackle the NFL on more serious issues. The PA wanted to eliminate the option clause and the Rozelle rule, which created a serious barrier to free agency; the PA also demanded that the NFL eliminate the draft, abolish and the waiver system, and begin including guaranteed contracts. The owners didn't budge, and the players went on strike for 42 days. The owners stayed tough, so the players called off the strike and instead chose to take the NFL to court.
The NFLPA's lawsuit lasted until 1976, but the players won; the owners were found guilty of violating federal labor and antitrust laws. The Rozelle rule was declared to be an unfair restraint of trade. As defined by the court, the "Rozelle Rule essentially provided that when a player's contractual obligation to a team expired and he signed with a different club, the signing club had to provide compensation to the player's former team. If the two clubs were unable to conclude mutually satisfactory arrangements, the Commissioner could award compensation in the form of one or more players and/or draft choices as he deemed fair and equitable." But after winning the case, the players used their new leverage not to force free agency but to increase their salaries. Following the lawsuit, the NFL and the NFLPA met to discuss a new CBA for the '77 season. Heres what happened:

In 1977 the NFLPA and the league negotiated a new deal in which the owners successfully convinced the players to accept compensation for those players affected by the Rozelle Rule while leaving a form of the compensation system in place. Under the new agreement benefits for players were upgraded and arbitration was introduced as a method to settle contract impasses. The subjective power to determine team move compensation on a case by case basis was removed from the commissioner's office and converted into a value based system that determined due compensation to the old team based on the value of the player's new contract with the new team.

Not anticipated by the player's association was the huge increases in revenue experienced by the league in the late 1970s due to the increasing popularity of the game itself as well as the addition of two regular season games (taking the schedule from 14 games to 16) and the expansion of the playoff field from eight to 10 teams in 1978.

The unintended and unforeseen consequence of this success was an increase in the size of new player contracts. Under the system agreed upon in 1977 many new player contracts now qualified the original team for compensation of up to or exceeding a first round pick from the new team; the compensation system was fixed based on lower overall average contract numbers and did not have a sliding scale based on growth in average contract size. As such movement between teams was still depressed.

It didn't take long for the NFLPA to realize it needed to fix players salaries to revenue; one of the goals for the '77 CBA was to get 55% of gross revenue given to the players, but the NFLPA gave up on that issue. But with drastically rising revenue, that decision proved to be foolhardy. Five years later, the players went on strike and the league canceled seven games during the 1982 season. And when it ended, not much had changed. The players still wanted the 55% rule; the owners still didn't want it. The two sides agreed to give the players a lot more money, in addition to more benefits, and to remove the cloud over contracts; previously, players had no idea what other players were making. Once they were able to find out the salaries of their teammates, salaries naturally began to rise. Additionally, the two sides agreed on a CBA that would take ensure labor peace... until 1987.

And that brings us to the 1987 strike. Just as in 1982, the players went on strike at the conclusion of week 2 of the NFL season. The NFL owners responded by choosing to hire replacement players if the real players would not play. The league canceled games for week 3 to allow the coaches to bring the replacement players up to speed. And in what was originally scheduled to be weeks 4, 5 and 6 of the NFL season, replacement players played in the NFL. The NFLPA saw this was a losing battle, and caved:

The 1987 strike ended in total defeat for the NFL Players Association. Having lost all leverage, the players crawled back to work without winning free agency, without winning a guaranteed share of league revenue, without even reaching agreement on a collective bargaining agreement. The owners' victory was so crushing that in 1989 the Players Association actually went out of business as a union; under federal labor law, workers gained standing to file class-action lawsuits against their employers only if they didn't belong to a union. Therefore, having been utterly thwarted in their 1987 strike, the players took the radical step of decertifying the union two years later to pursue their goals in court.

Part II: Team performance during the strike

Enough about history and labor disputes -- what happened on the field? Some teams, like the 49ers and the Redskins, were well prepared for the strike. Other teams put almost no effort into finding replacement players, thinking it might offend their real players. Some stars crossed the picket line after one or two weeks; most never crossed. But when you look at team statistics from the 1987 season, they feel flawed; they're 80% (or more) like every other season, but close to 20% of the statistics were compiled by replacement players. What I hope to do, over the next two days, is separate out the efforts of the replacement players from the performances by the real ones.

For starters, we can look at SRS ratings for the "replacement teams" during weeks 3, 4 and 5 of the '87 season (aka originally scheduled weeks 4, 5 and 6). It should be obvious that you need to take these SRS ratings with a huge grain of salt -- they're based on only three games (and therefore highly susceptible to outliers) along with the very faulty assumption that the teams had substantially the same roster in each of those three games. That said, the table below shows SRS ratings, margin of victory (with victories of more than 24 points counted as the average of 24 and the actual number), strength of schedule, and actual wins and losses.

Team

MOV

SOS

SRS

W

L

New Orleans Saints

9.0

12.1

21.1

2

1

Washington Redskins

13.2

7.3

20.4

3

0

St. Louis Cardinals

-1.7

19.6

17.9

1

2

San Francisco 49ers

12.3

4.8

17.1

3

0

Cleveland Browns

11.8

3.9

15.8

2

1

Pittsburgh Steelers

7.7

7.2

14.8

2

1

Chicago Bears

13.8

-2.5

11.4

2

1

Indianapolis Colts

8.7

2.4

11.0

2

1

Dallas Cowboys

8.0

2.7

10.7

2

1

Houston Oilers

6.5

2.9

9.4

2

1

New England Patriots

2.7

5.5

8.2

2

1

Los Angeles Rams

-6.0

13.1

7.1

1

2

Atlanta Falcons

-9.7

13.0

3.4

1

2

New York Jets

-5.7

6.5

0.8

1

2

Miami Dolphins

9.2

-11.5

-2.3

1

2

Seattle Seahawks

5.3

-8.6

-3.2

2

1

San Diego Chargers

6.7

-12.0

-5.4

3

0

Cincinnati Bengals

-8.2

2.4

-5.8

1

2

New York Giants

-16.5

9.7

-6.8

0

3

Buffalo Bills

-12.7

4.1

-8.5

1

2

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

2.3

-12.8

-10.4

2

1

Green Bay Packers

2.3

-15.4

-13.0

2

1

Philadelphia Eagles

-16.2

3.0

-13.2

0

3

Minnesota Vikings

-11.3

-4.0

-15.4

0

3

Denver Broncos

-1.2

-14.2

-15.4

2

1

Detroit Lions

-8.7

-8.9

-17.6

1

2

Los Angeles Raiders

-2.3

-17.6

-19.9

1

2

Kansas City Chiefs

-19.5

-12.5

-32.0

0

3

Some notes:

The Cardinals had a brutally difficult schedule, facing the the three best teams they could face, with two of those games coming on the road. By beating New Orleans, and losing one-score games in San Francisco and Washington, St. Louis manages to finish in the top three in SRS despite a 1-2 record.

On the other hand, the '87 Broncos strike team was not nearly as good as their 2-1 record. Denver lost by 30 at home to the Oilers, before beating up on the two worst teams in the league. For the LA Raiders, their only victory was against the pitiful Chiefs.

The Jets got some travel breaks due to the strike; New York only played true road game outside of its division in 1987. The Jets, scheduled to have 8 road games, lost one when the week 3 games were canceled, and played the last game of the season "at" the New York Giants. The faux Falcons were the only replacement team to play host for all three games, although a tough strength of schedule more than made up for that; the strike Chargers had to travel for all three matchups, but used stepping stones wearing Chiefs and Raiders uniforms to join the 49ers and Redskins as the only undefeated replacement teams.

Part III: Real players, fake games

A bunch of real NFL players, including some of the game's biggest stars, played during weeks 3, 4 and 5 of the '87 season. Who crossed the picket line? The following is an incomplete list of players who crossed the picket line and played during one of the three strike games; only players who recorded a major statistic (i.e., nearly all skill position players, a handful of defensive players, and almost no linemen) or any player who played in 13, 14 or 15 games are included. Because of the inaccurate way of deciding when a player crossed the picket line, there are bound to be many errors in this (i.e., player crosses after week 3, is on the roster but does not record a stat in week 4, records stats in week 5, and gets counted as crossing before week 5). This is just meant to provide a very rough guideline (and, obviously, all the players crossed no later than when they're listed as crossing):

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at how the "real" players performed during the 12 "real" games of the 1987 season, again using the SRS; I'll also take a look at what could have been in the NFL had the strike never happened.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 1st, 2010 at 7:42 am and is filed under History, Insane ideas.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Incredible game by Steve Largent. If I remember correctly it was against the Lions and he compiled those numbers by midway through the 3rd quarter before sitting the rest of the game. Thankfully he did sit as he could have smashed the NFL records for single game receptions and yards beyond all reach.

Strictly as a fan, I think it works out better that the NFLPA has been so weak over the years. But it definitely hasn't been fair to the players. I'm still not sure if it's fair to the players now. I'm also undecided as to whether the players should shoulder the cost of building stadiums. After all, if the new stadiums are helping the teams make more money, it helps the players make more money.

But anyway, I wonder why the NFLPA has been so weak. Since the game is so dangerous and careers are so short, you think the players would be able to band together to stand up for what they believe in. Or is it because there are so many NFL players that they are unable to unify? Or is it because careers are so short that players are not willing to lose a huge percentage of their lifetime earnings potential by losing a season?

I think the plight of debilitated NFL veterans is sad and the NFL really should have a better program to take care of them. But I also have a hard time feeling completely sorry for them. The guys who were playing in the 1970s could have stood up for retired healthcare back in 1974 (or whenever), but it wasn't important enough to them. This mirrors real life where 20-somethings could be disciplined and contribute to their IRA to insure a good retirement, but most (including me) don't end up doing it.

If we are going to lose all or part of the 2011 NFL season, I really hope that the NFL players work on a plan to get future NFL veterans taken care of. And they probably should take care of already retired players, who helped build the game to the point that many current NFL players are making millions per year.

Seems fitting that the two winningest teams of the '80s - Washington and San Francisco - would also go 3-0 during the replacement games and achieve such high SRS ratings. While some owners and GMs didn't take the strike seriously in 1987 the Redskins' and 49ers' management ensured that when the strike was over they had not lost ground in their quest for a Super Bowl and HFA.

Vikes were the only near-casualty in the NFC as they went 8-4 with their regulars, but almost missed the playoffs because their replacement squad went 0-3 (and was near the bottom of SRS rankings). Minnesota actually had to root for Dallas to beat the Cards in the season's final week.

Miami was also a near-miss. Had the regular records held they would have tied with Houston for a playoff spot, but the Oilers had a better record against the AFC which would have vaulted them into the postseason.

A footnote to post #5: Re; 1987 Vikings. WR James Brim actually hooked on with the Vikings team that year and played beyond the strike games.

Also: Don't know if anyone watched the Wash-Dall game that was on MNF that year as the final strike game, but Washington beat a Dallas team that had Randy White, Ed Jones, Danny White, and Tony Dorsett crossing the picket lines, along with a few others. RB Lionel Vitale outrushed Dorsett and the Redskins won 13-7. Don't know what the point spread was on that game off the top of my head, but it had to be considered somewhat of an upset. The game was in Dallas, too.

Another footnote: As mentioned before on PFR, check out QB Tony Adams' page. He had a nine-year break in between NFL seasons. He was drafted by the Chargers in 1973 but began his career in the WFL in 1974 with the Southern California Sun and made All-WFL. He actually was named MVP (Tri-MVP in 1974 of the entire WFL).

Then in 1975 he became a Chief as the heir apparent to Len Dawson, but took a backseat to Mike Livingston. Tidbit: In a 1976 preseason game Adams faced the Vikes in a 13-10 loss to Minnesota. Then he remained with the Chiefs for three seasons and played through the 1978 season. A two-year stint in 1979-1980 in the CFL with Toronto then seemingly closed out his career. But he joined the Vikings team in 1987 as a replacement player.

I have reason to think that Adams might have been active as a QB somewhere in '87 before rejoining the NFL, but I know the WLAF was still in its infancy. Maybe he played in Europe somewhere or in the Arena league. He is listed as an official ambassador of the KC Chiefs.

As I'm sure you know, that 1987 Redskins-Cowboys game was the basis for the movie The Replacements, where Keanu Reeves led the Washington Sentinels to a 20-17 victory over the Dallas Ropers, a full roster of real NFL players who had never crossed the picket line.

I wonder why the NFLPA has been so weak. Since the game is so dangerous and careers are so short, you think the players would be able to band together to stand up for what they believe in.

It may not be that the union is weak so much as the owners are stronger by being more united than in other sports.

Baseball is the big comparison, of course. The baseball players union has beaten up on the owners regulary -- using the tactics of "divided and conquer". Each baseball team is a stand-alone separate entity, and their self-interest is very different. The Yankees have very different interests than KC Royals and Minnesota Twins. The union has been able to use that very successfully to turn the owners against themselves, while the union as a single entity remains solid.

The NFL is very different. With revenue sharing from the TV contract, the NFL owners are much more all in the same boat, sink or sail together, than the baseball owners. So they have stood much more solidly together in dealings with the union.

Hockey is an interesting middle case. For a bunch of years the players union beat up on the onwers using divide and conquer, and it got to thinking it was the baseball players union and could get whatever it wanted. Then the union over-reached and pushed things so far that the economics of the sport headed downward.

Baseball *makes money* so the union has always been able to get more, because the owners when fighting themselves were divvying up profits. But hockey reached the point where it was *losing money*, which focused the owners' minds very efffectively, and at that point they joined ranks as one, even the rich teams joining the rest. When the owners said they'd shut down the league the union didn't believe it -- but the owners did it for a season and effectively broke the union.

There are two sides in negotiations. Whether the owners stand as one or squabble and fight among themselves makes a big difference in the outcome.